Critically Evaluate the Use of Personality Assessment in Work Settings

Critic all in ally Evaluate The Use Of constitution perspicacity In piss Settings. What be The Important Professional Issues? Abstract temperament tests argon white plagued in a hunt down setting, predominantly for the invention of recruitment and selection. A flake of professional issues exist around the up deliver of record tests in this setting, and practitioners should be suck of the possible flaws involved in the use of reputation tests. The literature has high uplighted concerns with the faking of character tests. Individuals faking tests nookie mean those who invite the highest scores argon the ones who atomic get 18 recruited.This should be checked where reputation tests argon employ for recruiting the top brush asidedidates as opposed to being used for removing the least fitted candidates. The rigour of personality tests has to be considered when being used for selection plan. A high face cogency of tests can increase the likelihood of faking test s in time low face validity can result in the personality tests being jilted by candidates. Practitioners watch to also take into report card a number of ethical issues before utilise personality tests in a fit setting.Key Words nature testing Faking Validity enlisting Ethics. Introduction Personality tests atomic number 18 used in a work setting at the stage of recruitment, and also once people atomic number 18 within a job, to assess their working preferences. Personality traits work been institute to be prognosticative of a number of placecomes, ranging from health behaviours to task process (Hough & Oswald, 2008). Work special factors connect to personality types include Job Per organizeance, Work Motivation, Leadership and Adapt energy (Morgeson et al. , 2007). Using the Big Five personality traits, Judge et al. (2001) show that conscientiousness, significantly predicts job action across different administrational settings, and Emotional stableness also pred icts overall Job Performance. Organisations wish to recruit the candidates who show the greatest probability of performing well in the role and those who are exhalation to benefit the most from the use of all of the training opportunities provided by the organisation (Shum, OGorman & Myors, 2006147). However, the use of personality judgments can be debated, and a number of factors form to be considered before exploitation personality tests to make master(prenominal) decisions more or less individuals careers.The focus of this essay is on the use of personality assessment in organisations, primarily in recruitment and selection, and the issues practitioners need to be alive(predicate) of before using personality assessments. Faking Faking of personality tests is been described by footing such as response distortion, impression management, social desirability, displaying unlikely virtues, and self-enhancement (griffon, Chmielowski & Yoshita, 2007). The umpteen definitions m ay account for the substantial number of published articles relating to the faking of personality tests (Morgeson et al. , 2007).Researchers stir enkindleed that it should be expected that individuals go forth give inaccurate responses in self-report tests referable to the value attached to the emergecome (Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007). However, in that location is little consensus in the research, about the frequency of faking, or how to address the issue. As selection is often carried out in a top-down approach, where those who perform in the top 5-10% are selected to progress (Arthur, Woehr, Graziano, 2001), the possibility of candidates faking personality tests should be a serious good will for practitioners, otherwise those who have falsely represented themselves will be selected.Where it is evident what is being tested in self-report questionnaires, there is likely to be a greater opportunity to pretended responses. The face validity of questionnaires is an import ant issue, as it is likely to contribute to faking. Furnham & Drakeley (2000) put up that managers tend to use personality tests with high face validity, due to concerns about having to rationalise the use of the test to participants. Alternatively, using low face validity personality tests could mean the participants reject the rightness of the test, and do non fully engage with it (Kline, 2000430).However, where face validity of personality tests is high, the accuracy of personality tests scores can be distorted by individuals who assume they know what the best response is, and give an extreme rating. Arthur et al. ,(2001) suggest that it is easy to assume the extreme scores on a outstrip are the most or least desired, due to the wording of questions. Ironically, fakers may overrate themselves and appear to be inappropriate for a role.For example, conscientiousness has been found to be easier to fake than other personality traits such as bareness to Experiences (Griffin, Hesk eth & Grayson, 2004) therefore individual who rate themselves to be overly Conscientious may be restrained by rules and be unsuitable for the position. Practitioners have to be certified of the limitations of high face validity and the likelihood of faked responses (Kline 2000 255). Much of the research around faking of personality tests has been lab-based, and carried out on students (Judge et al. 2008), therefore the question as to whether they do cheat in reality needs to be examined (Griffin, Chmielowski & Yoshita, 2007). Hogan et al. ,(2007) looked at responses to personality tests in the application process for a customer redevelopment role, and compared responses given at two stages by 5,266 applicants, over a hexad month interval. Hogan et al. , suggested that if individuals do fake personality tests at the recruitment stage, they are most likely to do so once they have been rejected from the job on a previous occasion. The findings indicated little difference in the pers onality bars from time one and time two.These findings would suggest that non all applicants attempt to fake in actual recruitment settings. However, findings by Griffin et al. ,(2007) indicated that some participants do fake their personality when applying to jobs, and this has an impact on the graze order of scores. A professional implication of these findings is that practitioners have to be circumspect when interpreting personality scores, but should not be cynical by disregarding personality totals totally. As well as being apprised of issues around faking, practitioners should be aware of the methods used to curb or aim faking.A proactive method used included the use of forced-choice, or ipsative inventories, in which neither election is more socially desirable than the other. An choice option is to use instructional warnings against faking. A reactive method for fixing faking can be the use of social desirability scales or a fraud scale within the inventory which in dicate if a respondent is faking. However, there is little leaven backup maning the effectiveness of strategies such as instructional warnings and forced choice item format (Hogan et al. , 2007), and social desirability questions are likely to be more transparent in their urpose, and therefore given up being to faked (Griffin et al. , 2007). With all of the issues surrounding faking of personality tests, it has been argued that instead of using the tests as a method of recruiting the best performers on the test, there is actually a greater benefit in using the measures as a form of rejecting the poorest performers when using tests to select out (Mueller- Hanson, Heggestad & Thornton, 2003). Using personality tests for selecting out applicants would supply those who have performed poorly, and those who have faked but not been successful in obtaining the bench mark score, to be rejected.Validity In the past decade there has been considerable evidence in the academic literature for the support of personality tests for selection, but a there have been concerns about the predicative validity of personality tests relating to work related behaviour (Meyer et al. , 2001). However, practitioners continued to use personality measures for selection purpose (Bartram, 2004), disregarding the academic arguments. Critics often highlight the low validity scores of the best predictor in the Big Five with Job Performance, conscientiousness (r=0. 23 Judge et al. 2008), where as other methods of assessment, such as the use of General Mental Ability tests which have been found to have a predictive validity of r=0. 51 (Schmidt & huntsman, 1998). However, the validity score of Conscientiousness should not be dismissed. Meyer et al. , (2001) identified a large number of medical checkup and psychological interventions, which produce correlations of approximately . 15 to . 30, are commonly true by professionals, such as taking regular aspirin to reduce risk of heart attacks. It can be argued that academics are actually guidance on a gold measurement score of validity (Judge et al. 2008), and not looking at the benefits of other interventions that have similar predictive validities. Schmidt & Hunter (1998) suggest that using a combination of measures with relatively low validity on their own, when combined would be more than sufficient for use in recruiting, for example combining a conscientiousness tests, work sample tests and a job knowledge tests. Practitioners should have a clear understanding of the step validity of personality measures in relationship to job performance, and be aware of large degree of unaccountable variance that can occur.There is no stock-purchase warrant that an individual who scores highly on a personality measure will be successful in their role, and an individuals skills and ability are likely to account for a large part of their performance in the role (Shum et al. ,2006161). Ethics It is important that ethical issues are interpreted into consideration when using personality measures in a work setting. first of all of all, organisations have to be aware of the qualifications required by the individual administering the personality tests and interpreting them.In the UK, the British mental Society sets a requisite standard through the attainment of take aim A & Level B qualifications in order to administer and interpret both ability and personality tests. However, not all individuals who administer tests are responsible for interpreting the data, therefore the those who are administering the test should obtain the Occupational Test Administration qualification (British Psychological Society, 2000). Insufficient training on the use of a personality measure can result in misinterpretation of the results and render the test useless.Where individuals have not been provided with sufficient training to administer tests, there is the possibility of providing incompatible book of instructions to participa nts, and leading to errors or biases in the results (Kline, 20009). An issue that ties in with the Level B training is that practitioners are trained to use one specialized test, therefore they may only ever use this one test, and not take into consideration the appropriateness of the test they are using for the specific needs of the organisation. Organisations need to be aware of the issues around the feedback they provide to individuals who take part in personality measures.How feedback is interpreted by individuals should be considered, and whether they will understand the meaning of the scores (Kline, 2000431). Where a candidate completes a personality test, but does not score at the top of the group, they may notice they are not suitable for the organisation, or the type of role they are applying for. The implications of what is reported back to the candidates can result in an individual making major decisions about the type of role they apply for in the future, should they b e told that they scored significantly poorly in the personality test (Toplis, Dulewicz & Fletcher, 200537).Practitioners should clearly rationalise the reason for the personality measures used, and come across the feedback they provide will not have a negative impact on the individual. An important consideration for practitioners should be the possible biases held within personality tests, which can be biased towards a gender, race, social class or disability. These factors can influence the score of a personality test, and can mask actual scores (British Psychological Society, 2000). However, there is evidence to suggest that the use of personality measures balances out the biases of ability tests, when study different racial groups.Therefore the combined use of ability and personality tests can be beneficial (Bartram, 2004). When testing individuals with disabilities, factors such as the time required, the surround being tested in, and the method of testing, all have to be cons idered to ensure the testing process is fair (Toplis, Dulewicz & Fletcher, 200542). Conclusion Researchers have identified clear benefits in using personality measures in a work related environment, especially when recruiting to a post.However, the use of personality assessment should be considered as a supplementary method of selection into a role, due to the number of possible factors that can influence the results of a personality test. It is clear that faking of tests is a well researched area, however, little consensus exists with how to best address the possibility that individuals will fake a test that has a value attached to the outcome (Hogan et al. , 2007). wholeness possible solution is to use the tests as a form of selecting out those who are in the lowest percentile (Mueller-Hanson et al. 2003), and using additional measures to support the selection of those who perform in the upper percentile. The concerns about the criterion validity of personality measures and job p erformance have raised doubts about the suitability of personality assessments. When comparing single personality traits with alternative methods of assessment for their predictive validity, it is clear that alternative methods are stronger predictors of work related behaviours (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), however, personality measures are still considered reliable measures, therefore should be used to supplement alternative methods or assessment.It is clear that the ethical implications of using personality assessments are an important factor, as they can influence the outcome of the tests as well as the responses of the participants. If practitioners do not follow the correct procedures by providing adequate instructions and ensuring standardised conditions, it is likely that individuals will reject the tests (Kline, 20009). It is also important to consider the effects of taking a personality assessment, and then knowing you failed to carry through the cut off point.The way in which feedback is given can have detrimental effects of individuals therefore the issue should be approached with caution (Toplis et al, 200537). In conclusion, there are a number of issues that need to be considered when using personality assessments in a work setting. The benefit of gauging an individuals behaviour through assessing their personality is clear, however, practitioners should be aware of the flaws in personality assessment, and be aware of alternative forms of assessment when selecting individuals for a job, to supplement personality assessments.Word count 2173 REFERENCES Arthur W. J. , Woehr D. J. , Graziano W. G. (2001). Personality interrogatory In Employment Settings Problems And Issues In The activity Of Typical Selection Practices. Personnel Review, 30(5),657-677 Bartram, D. (2004). Assessment In Organisations. employ psychological science An International Review, 53, 237-259. British Psychological Association,(2000). Psychological interrogatory A users Guide P sychological. Leicester The British Psychological Society Furnham, A. , & Drakely, R. (2000). Predicting Occupational Personality Test Scores.Journal of Psychology, 134, 103-111 Griffin, B. , Hesketh, B. , & Grayson. D. (2004). Applicants Faking Good Evidence of Item Bias In The modern Pi-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (7), 1545-1558. Griffith R. L, Chmielowski T. S, Yoshita Y. (2007). Do Applicants Fake? An Examination Of The relative frequency Of Applicant Faking Behavior. Personnel Review, 36 (3), 341355. Hogan, J. , Barrett,P. , & Hogan R. (2007). Personality Measurement, Faking, And Employment Selection. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92,(5), 12701285 Hough, L. M. , &Oswald, F. L. 2008) Personality Testing and Industrial organisational Psychology Reflections, Progress, And Prospects Industrial And Organizational Psychology, 1, 272290. Judge, T. A. , Klinger, R. , Simon, L. S. , & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The Contributions of Personality to Organizational Behavior And Psychology Findings, Criticisms, And Future Research Directions. cordial and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1982-2000. Kline P. (2000) The Handbook Of Psychological Testing, (2 Ed). London Routledge, Meyer, G. J. , Finn, S. E. , Eyde, L. D. , Kay, G. G. , Moreland, K. L. , Dies, R.R. , Et Al. (2001). Psychological Testing And Psychological Assessment A Review Of Evidence And Issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128165. Morgeson, F. P. , Campion, M. A. , Dipboye, R. L. , Hollenbeck, J. R. , Murphy, K. , & Schmitt, N. (2007). Are We Getting Fooled Again? Coming To Terms With Limitations In The Use Of Personality Tests For Personnel Selection. Personnel Psychology, 60, 1029-1049 Mueller-Hanson, R. , Heggestad, E. D. , & Thornton III, G. C. (2003). Faking and Selection Considering The Use Of Personality From Select-In And Select-Out Perspectives.Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 348-355. Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E. (1998). The Validity and Utility Of Selection Methods In Personnel Psychology operable And Theoretical Implications Of 85 Years Of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. I24 (2), 262-74. Shum, D. , Myors, B. , & OGorman, J. (2006) Psychological Testing and Assessment. OxfordOxford University Press Toplis, J. , Dulewicz, V. , & Fletcher, C. (2005) Psychological Testing (4th eds). LondonInstitute of Personnel & Development.